The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is India’s primary anti-corruption law. Over time, the Supreme Court has delivered several landmark rulings that shaped its interpretation and enforcement. These decisions clarify sanction timelines, legislative immunity, the role of private bank officials, evidentiary rules, and institutional reforms.

For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472

Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012)

The Court held that prosecution sanction under Section 19 must be decided within three months, with a one-month grace period. Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s request to prosecute Minister A. Raja in the 2G scam faced a 16-month delay. The Court ruled such delays are unconstitutional. It clarified that the lapse of time does not mean “deemed sanction”; a valid decision is still required.

P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998) – JMM Bribery Case

The Court ruled that Members of Parliament are public servants under Section 2(c). It held that parliamentary privilege under Article 105(2) protects only speeches or votes inside Parliament. Bribery outside the House is not protected.

Seven-Judge Bench Ruling on Legislative Immunity (2024)

In March 2024, the Supreme Court overruled the 1998 view. It held that bribery is complete when illegal gratification is received. Legislative privilege cannot shield lawmakers from prosecution if the act is unrelated to legislative functions.

CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016)

The Court ruled that senior officials of private banks can be treated as public servants under Section 2(c)(viii) if they perform public duties. It relied on the Banking Regulation Act to extend the law’s scope to private banking executives.

Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)

The Court ordered reforms to ensure CBI’s independence and gave statutory status to the Central Vigilance Commission. It reaffirmed the four-month sanction timeline for prosecution decisions, ensuring speedy action.

State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda (2023)

The Court held that if prosecution sanction is invalid, the trial court should discharge the accused and allow a fresh sanction. Procedural flaws do not nullify trials unless they cause a failure of justice.

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI (2018)

The Court ruled that errors in sanction orders can be challenged only if they cause a failure of justice. It allowed High Courts to review and stay order-framing decisions despite limits in Section 19(3)(c).

Conclusion

These Supreme Court rulings have shaped the Prevention of Corruption Act’s enforcement. They speed up sanction processes, expand coverage to private banking, restrict misuse of legislative privilege, and clarify evidentiary rules. Together, they strengthen India’s legal framework against corruption while protecting due process.